Simpson is a good guy, a former Wyoming senator who famously said "Where I come from, 'gun control' means pointing your gun steadily at the thing you intend to shoot." Bowles has a good reputation too.
I wonder if anybody in their commission has the guts to say that the federal government is involved in entirely too many things that are (a) expensive, and (b) none of their business.
If there was no federal Department of Education, does anybody realistically think school districts would stop educating kids? Nonsense.
If there was no federal Department of Agriculture, would farmers stop planting? Of course not. If there was no Department of Housing and Urban Development, would our people start living in tents? I sure wouldn't, how about you? You get the idea.
Very clearly the federal government needs to do the Department of the Treasury, the Fed, the State Department, Defense, and Justice. Beyond that, I believe many regulatory functions are legitimate: food and drug, airlines, EPA, etc. We do need the government to be the "referee," calling "fouls" and keeping the game fair.
What I've suggested is probably not feasible politically. All the "functions" I've listed have giant constituencies who would howl like wolves if 'their' departments were threatened.
The survival of the nation may not be feasible either. How does that grab you? I hate it a lot. It is time to seriously consider downsizing the federal government, privatizing or delegating to the states and localities many functions now done at the federal level.
The advantage of doing this is that sub-federal jurisdictions must balance their budgets year-by-year. They have to pay for what they spend. So they will either tax and spend or tax less and spend less.
People will vote with their feet and move to the jurisdictions where the governmental model suits their tastes. Evidence suggests they will move to the low tax, small government places. At least that is what they have been doing in the last decade or two.
